The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner, a not-for- profit organization is entitled to a refund of taxes collected and paid to Respondent pursuant to the exemption provision of Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the Petitioner's witness, the arguments of counsel and Respondent's brief submitted on June 5, 1979, the following relevant facts are found. The Petitioner, Miami Civic Music Association, is seeking a refund of taxes collected and paid prior to October 1, 1978, on the sale of membership fees. The Petitioner obtained a certificate qualifying it as a not-for-profit organization from the United States Internal Revenue Service since approximately 1945. This status has been submitted to Respondent. Prior to October 1, 1978, Petitioner submitted to Respondent approximately $1,602.33 based on the sale of membership dues received for musical performances which were to he held subsequent to October 1, 1978, i.e., October 25, 1978 through April, 1979. Petitioner bases its refund claim on the fact that the actual concert series which gave rise to the ticket sales occurred after October 1, 1978. Respondent's position is that the Petitioner is not entitled to a refund, first, on the ground that the tax collections for which the refund is being sought were collected prior to October 1, 1978, and therefore not properly refundable under the exemption provision of Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes. Secondly, Respondent contends that Petitioner is without standing to seek a refund since the sales tax applicable to admission charges purportedly collected must first be refunded to the respective subscribers which the Petitioner has not done in this case. Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, provides: No tax shall be levied on dues, membership fees, and admission charges imposed by not- for-profit sponsoring organizations or community or recreational facilities. To receive this exemption, the sponsoring organization or facility must qualify as a not-for-profit entity under the provisions of s. 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Cede of 1954, as amended. This exemption became effective October, 1978. The membership fees here in question were sold by Petitioner prior to October 1, 1978, and taxes were collected and remitted to the Department of Revenue. An examination of the legislative intent embodied in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, reveals that each and every admission is taxed unless specifically exempted. (Subsection 212.21(3), Florida Statutes.) Inasmuch as there was no statutory exemption for Petitioner's organization prior to October 1, 1975, and based on the fundamental rule of statutory construction to the effect that a statute operates prospectively unless the intent is clearly expressed that it operates retrospectively. State, Department of Revenue v. Zuckerman-Vernon Corporation (Florida 1977) 354 So.2d 353. Subsection 212.04(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, reveals no legislative intent that this amendment was to be applied retrospectively. Finally, since an admissions tax like sales taxes, are collected on behalf of the State by the operator, it is in effect a form of excise tax upon the customer for exercising his privilege of purchasing the admission, the Petitioner herein lacks standing inasmuch as it did not pay the taxes, but merely remitted to the Department of Revenue the tax which was paid by subscribers of the memberships from the organization. See, for example, Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 101 So.2d 775 (Florida 1958) and State ex rel Szabo Food Services, Inc. of N.C. v. Dickinson, 250 So.2d 529 (Florida 1973). In this case, in the absence of the Petitioner showing that it was the party entitled to a refund of the taxes herein based on a claim of either an overpayment, a payment where no tax was due or a payment erroneously made, Petitioner failed to advance a basis upon which its claim can be granted. Section 215.26, Florida Statutes. For these reasons, I shall recommend that the Petitioner's claim for a refund herein be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's claim for a refund herein be DENIED. ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Wakefield, Esquire Hedges, Gossett, McDonald & wakefield 3325 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 305 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joseph R. Fida, III, was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from July 3, 1975, to November 23, 1975. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. On November 3, 1975, Walter J. Pankz joined International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate broker. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J. R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Joseph R. Fida, III 19801 S.W. 110th Court Apartment 806 Miami, Florida 33157
Findings Of Fact On November 24, 1976, petitioner purchased an airplane (the Corsair) in Florida from R. D. Whittington Aircraft Sales, Inc., for which he paid eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00). Sales tax has never been paid on account of this transaction. Before the purchase, petitioner asked George W. Sullivan, an airplane mechanic and test pilot, to evaluate the Corsair as an investment for resale. After petitioner acquired the Corsair, he caused three new cylinders to be installed and had the carburetor, the magneto and the propeller overhauled. Within three or four months of petitioner's acquisition, several prospective purchasers had inspected the Corsair. In the spring of 1977, petitioner began displaying the Corsair. At various times, petitioner engaged other pilots to ferry the Corsair to aircraft shows at Cherry Point, North Carolina, Greenville- Spartanburg, South Carolina, and elsewhere. At the time of the hearing, the Corsair had been flown approximately 43 hours since petitioner had acquired it, ten to twelve hours of which petitioner flew himself, in the course of displaying the Corsair and checking out repairs. Petitioner has traded in airplanes for the last several years and has been recognized as a dealer in aircraft by the Internal Revenue Service. Petitioner, who moved to Florida from California, applied to respondent for a dealer's certificate promptly upon learning that he was required to do so. On November 24, 1976, however, petitioner was not registered as an aircraft dealer with respondent. After an unsuccessful attempt to register effective retroactively to July 1, 1972, petitioner registered as a dealer with respondent, effective October 1, 1977. According to respondent's records, R. D. Whittington Aircraft Sales, Inc., was not registered as a dealer with respondent on November 24, 1976, and has not registered since. Petitioner obtained an address for R. D. Whittington Aircraft Sales, Inc., from respondent and, on or about, December 20, 1977, sent by certified mail a blanket resale and exemption certificate to the address respondent had furnished. A return receipt indicated that the certificate was delivered as addressed. In the past, respondent has treated sales to dealers as exempt from sales tax where the purchaser furnished the seller a resale and exemption certificate at the time of the sale and even when the certificate has been furnished afterwards, where the purchaser was registered as a dealer with respondent at the time of the transaction. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's proposed assessment be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax by Respondent, and if so, how much and what penalty, if any, should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Aircraft Trading Center, Inc. (Petitioner), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 17885 S.E. Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida. Petitioner is engaged in the business of purchasing aircraft for resale. During all times material hereto, Petitioner was registered as an aircraft dealer with the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and registered as a retail dealer with the State of Florida, Department of Revenue (Respondent). The selling price of Petitioner's aircraft range from one million to twenty-five million dollars and helicopters from two hundred thousand to three million dollars. Normally, Petitioner purchases an aircraft, without having a confirmed buyer. Petitioner purchases an aircraft based upon in-house research which shows a likelihood that the aircraft can be resold at a profit. Petitioner's aircraft is demonstrated to potential buyers/customers. The customers require a demonstration to determine if the aircraft meets the particular needs of the customer. The demonstration could take one day or as long as two weeks. During the demonstration, the customer pays the expenses associated with flying the aircraft. Petitioner uses two methods to determine the costs of demonstration. In one method, the cost is determined from a reference source utilized in the industry to show the cost of operating a particular type of aircraft. In the other method, the customer pays Petitioner's actual out-of- pocket cost. No matter which method is used, the charges to the customers are listed as income on Petitioner's bookkeeping books and records, per the advice of Petitioner's certified public accounting (CPA) firm. Petitioner remains the owner of the aircraft during the demonstration and until the sale. Also, during demonstration, Petitioner maintains insurance coverage on the aircraft and is the loss payee. In an attempt to make sure "legitimate" customers are engaged in the demonstrations, Petitioner screens potential buyers to make sure that they have the resources to purchase one of Petitioner's aircraft. For sales to buyers/customers residing out-of-state, Petitioner utilizes a specific, but standard procedure. Such customers are provided a copy of the Florida Statute dealing with exempting the sale from Florida's sales tax if the aircraft is removed from the State of Florida within ten (10) days from the date of purchase. Florida sales tax is not collected from the buyer if the buyer executes an affidavit which states that the buyer has read the Florida Statute and that the buyer will remove the plane from Florida within ten (10) days after the sale or the completion of repairs and if the bill of sale shows an out-of-state address for the buyer. When an aircraft is sold, Petitioner's standard procedure is to prepare a purchase agreement and after receiving payment, Petitioner prepares a bill of sale. Petitioner sends the bill of sale to a title company in Oklahoma which handles all of Petitioner's title transfers. The title company records the bill of sale, registers the change of title with the FAA and sends Petitioner a copy of the title. For all sale transactions, Petitioner maintains a file which includes the affidavit, the bill of sale, and a copy of the title. Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner for the period 2/1/87- 1/31/92 to determine if sales and use tax should be assessed against Petitioner. All records were provided by Petitioner. The audit resulted in an assessment of sales and use tax, penalty, and interest against Petitioner. Respondent assessed tax on the sale of a helicopter and on certain charges made by Petitioner to its customers as a result of demonstrations. Regarding the helicopter, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $18,000.00 for the helicopter transaction. By invoice dated 7/10/89, Petitioner sold the helicopter to Outerscope, Inc., for $300,000.00. Outerscope was an out-of-state company. Petitioner used its standard procedure for the sale of aircraft and sales to nonresidents. Petitioner did not obtain proof that the helicopter was removed from the State of Florida, and Petitioner has no knowledge as to whether it was removed. As to the charges by Petitioner for demonstrations, Respondent assessed tax in the amount of $72,488.55. Respondent determined the tax by taking an amount equal to 1 percent of the listed value of the aircraft demonstrated and multiplying that number by 6 percent, the use tax rate. Respondent relied upon the records and representations provided by Petitioner's bookkeeper as to determining which aircraft were demonstrated, the value of the aircraft and the months in which the aircraft were demonstrated. Several transactions originally designated as demonstrations have been now determined by Petitioner's bookkeeper not to be demonstrations: The February 4, 1987 transaction with Ray Floyd. The July 10, 1988 transaction involving Trans Aircraft. The May 2 and 12, 1989 items for Stalupi/Bandit. The July 12, 1989 item involving Bond Corp. The July 18, 1989 item involving Seardel. The November 28, 1990 item involving J. P. Foods Service. Petitioner's CPA firm advises it regarding Florida's sales and use tax laws. At no time did the CPA firm advise Petitioner that its (Petitioner's) demonstrations were subject to sales and use tax and that it (Petitioner) was required to obtain proof that an aircraft had been removed from the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order assessing sales and use tax for the period 2/1/87 - 1/31/92 against Aircraft Trading Center, Inc., consistent herewith. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of July 1995. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July 1995. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 14. Rejected as subordinate. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 9. 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 16. Respondent Partially accepted in findings of fact 11 and 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Also, see Conclusion of Law 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 7 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 13-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert O. Rogers, Esquire Rogers, Bowers, Dempsey & Paladeno 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1330 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Lealand L. McCharen Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol-Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Columbus Equities International, Inc. (Columbus Equities), was registered as a broker/dealer with petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Division), having been issued broker/dealer registration number 30936. The business address of the firm was 6321 East Livingston Avenue, Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Respondent, Roger L. Parsons, was registered with the Division as an agent with Columbus Equities. He was also registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) as the financial and operations principal, general principal and representative of Columbus Equities. As such, Parsons was responsible for supervising the employees of Columbus Equities. Similarly, under the terms of Rule 3E-600.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, Columbus Equities was also responsible for the acts of its employees. Prior to June 1990, Columbus Equities was known as Parsons Securities, Inc. The business was originally formed in 1978 by Parsons, who is majority stockholder and serves as its president, secretary and director. In June 1990, the firm's name was changed to Columbus Equities International, Inc. In January 1991, Columbus Equities filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the Federal Bankruptcy Law. When the events herein occurred, Vincent C. Lombardi was registered with the NASD as general securities principal, representative and registered options principal of Columbus Equities. Lombardi's business address was 450 Tuscarora Road, Crystal Bay, Nevada, where he managed the Nevada branch office of Columbus Equities. Except for Ohio, Lombardi was not registered to sell securities in any other state, including Florida. In the fall of 1990, a Division financial analyst, Joanne Kraynek, received a letter from the Nevada Securities Commission. Based upon that letter, Kraynek wrote a letter on November 21, 1990, to "Parsons Securities/Columbus Equities International, Inc." regarding that firm's alleged sale of unregistered securities to a Florida resident. The letter requested various items of information. On December 6, 1990, Lombardi replied to Kraynek's letter on behalf of Columbus Equities and enclosed a number of documents in response to her request. Based upon this information and a subsequent investigation by the Division, the following facts were determined. On May 31, 1990, Charles D. Flynn conducted a transaction on behalf of his wife, Susan, for the purchase of 4,933 shares of World Videophone, an unregistered security. On June 22, 1990, Flynn purchased 2,500 shares of White Knight Resources Limited on behalf of his wife. That security was also not registered in the State of Florida. On July 9, 1990, Flynn purchased an additional 2,000 shares of White Knight Resources Limited on behalf of his wife. In each transaction, the trade was executed by Lombardi from the Nevada branch office of Columbus Equities. When the sales occurred, Flynn and his wife resided at 2045 Parkside Circle South, Boca Raton, Florida. In finding that the Flynns were Florida residents at the time of the trades, the undersigned has rejected a contention by Parsons that Flynn purchased the stocks while residing in Canada and thus the transactions were not subject to the Division's jurisdiction. Evidence of these transactions and the Flynns' Florida domicile is confirmed by the deposition testimony of Mr. Flynn, admissions by Lombardi, and copies of the order tickets from the Nevada branch office. The order tickets reflect the code "MM" (market maker), which means that Columbus Equities held the securities in its own inventory and did not have to go to an outside source to obtain the stocks. Thus, Parsons (on behalf of Columbus Equities) should have been familiar with these securities. However, at hearing he acknowledged that he was not. This in itself is an indication that Parsons was not properly supervising his employees. Finally, there was no evidence that the three transactions were exempt within the meaning of Sections 517.051 and 517.061, Florida Statutes, and thus were beyond the Division's jurisdiction. As the principal for Columbus Equities, Parsons was responsible for supervising the activities of both Lombardi and the Nevada branch office. Indeed, section 27, article III of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice requires that a NASD member such as Parsons supervise the activities of all associated persons to insure that those persons are complying with all securities laws and regulations. In order to fulfill this duty, Parsons should have reviewed on a timely basis the monthly statements generated by the Nevada office as well as that office's new account applications. For the reasons stated hereinafter, Parsons' review of Lombardi's activities was neither complete nor timely. The Flynn account was opened by Lombardi in April 1990 and Lombardi was the only employee who dealt with the Flynns. Parsons had no knowledge that the Flynn account had been opened because he did not review new account applications. This failure to review new account applications prevented Parsons from detecting whether Lombardi was selling securities in states such as Florida where he was not registered. Lombardi was required to send Parsons a monthly statement reflecting the activity of the branch office. During his review of the May statement in the second or third week of June 1990, Parsons became aware of the first Flynn transaction. Just prior to that, Parsons had learned that Lombardi had also engaged in another illicit trade. In addition, Parsons subsequently became aware of at least four other transactions (including two more with the Flynns) involving the sale of securities by Lombardi in states where he was not registered. However, except for a verbal warning given to Lombardi to discontinue that type of trade, Parsons took no disciplinary action against Lombardi until September 13, 1990, when Lombardi was terminated as an employee and the Nevada branch office closed. By failing to review the new account applications and to take prompt action against Lombardi after having learned of his indiscretions, Parsons failed to properly supervise his employees. Rule 3E-600.014(6), Florida Administrative Code, requires that each member establish, maintain and enforce written procedures governing the conduct of its employees to ensure compliance with all security laws and regulations. To this end, Parsons developed a policy (compliance) manual which was to serve as a guide in the conduct of all employees of Parsons Securities, Inc. and its successor, Columbus Equities. A copy of this manual should have been given to each employee, including Lombardi, for his or her review. However, Parsons did not know if Lombardi ever received and reviewed the manual. In addition, the manual itself was deficient in that it failed to indicate whether employees were to be given a copy for review, and it contained no provisions for taking disciplinary action against an agent if he violated a manual proscription. By failing to develop and utilize an appropriate manual, respondents violated the above cited rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by petitioner finding respondents guilty of all violations alleged in the administrative complaint, ordering respondents to cease and desist all unlawful activities, and imposing a $5,000 fine, jointly and severally, against them. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1992.
Findings Of Fact In Exhibit 3 Petitioner disputes the overpayment of sales tax, penalties and interest in the amount of $62,035.63. At the hearing it was stipulated that the disputed sum is $62,000.00. Petitioner is owner and publisher of a weekly paper, The Tampa/Metro Neighbor (Neighbor), published in Tampa and distributed in the Tampa metropolitan area of Hillsborough County. The Neighbor is distributed to readers free of charge. Petitioner started rack sales September 27, 1980, and has sold approximately 125 per week since that time. Its total circulation is approximately 164,000. The Neighbor has not been entered or qualified to be admitted and entered as second class mail matter at a post office in the county where it is published. The Neighbor is delivered by approximately one thousand carriers to residences and apartments in Hillsborough County each Thursday. The papers are placed in plastic bags to protect them from the weather. Petitioner claims sales tax exemption for the purchase of newsprint, ink, and plastic bags used to print and distribute the Neighbor. Newspapers such as The Tampa Tribune are exempt from sales tax on these items. The Neighbor is organized into seven departments. These are: editorial, retail advertising, classified advertising, accounting, circulation, production, and printing. The editorial staff provides all items in the paper other than advertising. The editorial/advertising mix of the Neighbor is approximately 25 percent-75 percent. No 12-month breakdown of these percentages was presented. The Neighbor defines editorial content as everything except paid advertising. Only newspapers and other periodical publications are eligible for mailing at second class rates of postage. Publications primarily designed for free circulation and/or circulation at nominal rates may not qualify for the general publications category (Exhibit 24). General publication primarily designed for advertising purposes may not qualify for second class privileges. Those not qualifying include those publications which contain more than 75 percent advertising in more than half of the issues published during any 12- month period (Exhibit 24). Second class mail privilege is a very valuable asset for newspapers and other qualifying publications. The editorial content of the Neighbor, as defined in Finding of Fact 7 above, is comprised of local news, sporting news, local investigative reporting, an opinions section, and an entertainment section. The advertising is split into classifieds and other. The Neighbor contains no national or international news, no wire service reports, no comics, no stock market reports, no sports statistics, no weather reports, no nationally syndicated columnists, no state capital news, no obituaries, no book review section, and no special section such as home designs, gardening, etc. Neighbor considers its primary competition to be The Tampa Tribune. However, this competition is limited to advertising, as the Neighbor has none of the traditional newspaper functions above noted which are normally carried in daily newspapers. Petitioner presented two expert witnesses who opined that the Neighbor met the requirements to be classified as a newspaper because it was published in newspaper format; that it had an editorial section which provided some news as contrasted to that provided in a shopping guide; that the 75 percent-25 percent advertising-editorial content did not make the Neighbor primarily an advertising paper; that the requirements of the U.S. Post Office for a periodical to obtain second class mail privileges is not relevant to a determination that the Neighbor is not a newspaper; that the requirements of the Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.08(3)(d) and 12A-1.08(4), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant in determining whether the Neighbor is a newspaper; and that in a journalistic concept the Neighbor is a newspaper. The Neighbor was purchased in 1979 by North American Publications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Morris Communications Corporation. Morris Communications Corporation owns several newspapers scattered from Florida to Alaska, both daily and weekly publications. Most of these publications are sold to paid subscribers. Petitioner's testimony that sales tax was not collected from Petitioner's predecessor owner was flatly contradicted by the testimony of Respondent's witness. Since the latter witness is in a much better position to know the facts respecting sales taxes levied on the former owner of the Neighbor, this testimony is the more credible. In any event, Petitioner did not claim estoppel.
Findings Of Fact Tireless, Inc., was incorporated in the State of Delaware in October, 1981. On October 15, 1984, Tireless, Inc. purchased a 61 foot 1985 Hatteras motor yacht from Toledo Beach Marina in LaSalle, Michigan, for a purchase price of $771,339.00. Delivery was to be taken at New Bern, North Carolina. The above stated price was the factory invoice price of $746,330.00 plus a $25,000.00 profit to the dealer. The invoice for the sale, dated October 4, 1984, reflecting that the yacht was sold to Toledo Beach Marina, nonetheless reflects that the customer, who was to pay 100 per cent of the purchase price prior to delivery by customer pick up was Mr. Geiger. After purchase, the yacht was documented in Wilmington, Delaware and home-ported there. The name and home port appearing on the transom of the vessel reflected, "Tireless, Wilmington, Delaware." The vessel constituted the sole asset of its owning corporation. The vessel was purchased as an investment. It was anticipated that it would be used by company personnel for pleasure as well as business meetings and it could and would be chartered out on occasion. Though the vessel reportedly was to be used on the Great Lakes, because of the reported possibility of severe weather in that area at the time of pick up and of ice forming in one or more of the 38 locks of the canal across New York State to Lake Erie, a decision was made to take the boat to Florida for winter storage. Recognizing that dockage facilities are quite often difficult to come by, arrangements were made for the boat to be docked at the Bahia Mar Yacht Basin in Fort Lauderdale, arguably the premier, most active and most prestigious anchorage in South Florida. These arrangements were made well in advance of the arrival of the vessel. This was to be a winter dockage only. From the time of its arrival at the yacht basin in November, 1984 until it left to go north in April, 1985, it did not leave the basin although it was moved from one slip to another in the same marina. While at the Bahia Mar Yacht Basin, certain modifications were made to the vessel such as the installation of additional electronics and a custom interior was installed. From November 1, 1984 through April 5, 1985, Mr. Geiger visited the boat on six occasions staying overnight on it for one or more nights each time. The boat was not used for parties nor did any other person live aboard the boat during its stay at Bahia Mar. Though the Tireless was brought from North Carolina to Fort Lauderdale, there were other ports to the north where the boat could have been wintered including New Bern, itself, and various ports in South Carolina and Georgia, not even considering those Florida ports to the north. Mr. Geiger contends that corporate officials picked the Fort Lauderdale berth because of the availability of berthing facilities and the capability of electronics installation found in the immediate area. This argument is not persuasive, however. There was nothing shown to be particularly unique about the electronics installed or the interior customizing done which could not have been done in other marinas between New Bern and Fort Lauderdale such as Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida. What is obvious, though no direct evidence of this was presented, is that in the wintertime, the climate of Fort Lauderdale is far superior and friendly than those other ports as are the social aspects. The boat was sailed from the factory to Fort Lauderdale by a crew made up of Mr. Geiger as captain and several other non- profession sailors who were friends or acquaintances of his. Upon arrival in Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Geiger put the boat into the marina immediately and stayed but one day prior to leaving to return up north. In addition to the six or so visits paid to the boat by Mr. Geiger referenced above, other unidentified individuals from up north did come down and onto the yacht at its berth for short periods. During the trip down from North Carolina, the boat utilized the Intracoastal Waterway and stopped at one or two Florida marinas over night on the way. On or about September 26, 1984, Mr. Geiger entered into a license agreement for dockage space with the Bahia Mar Hotel and Yachting Center for slip # E-251 for the Tireless at a rate of 90 per day to start on November 15, 1984. Thereafter, on November 2, he entered another agreement with the marina for a different slip, # H-359. The rate and estimated length of stay reflected on this second agreement is listed as "cond." No explanation of this notation was given. The bills for the dockage reflect numerous phone calls and other charges on an almost daily basis, the explanation for which is that they were calls made by workmen or others in reference to the work being done on the boat. When these bills came due they were paid and payment was authorized either by Mr. Geiger as President of Tireless, Inc., or by a yacht broker resident at the marina who was supervising the work being done on the vessel. In April, 1985, the boat was sailed from South Florida up to South Carolina where it stayed for a few weeks then on to North Carolina for a week and on to New York where it stayed for several weeks prior to going to the Great Lakes and its dockage in Ohio for the summer. While up north, it was, as intended, used for pleasure, business, and charter on several occasions. One of the individuals who showed a strong interest in chartering the vessel while it was in Ohio indicated also that he might be interested in chartering it in South Florida for the winter. As a result, Mr. Geiger had the boat brought back in the fall of 1985. However, the proposed charter fell through. While in Florida, however, the boat was sold to another individual who paid approximately $805,000.00 for it. The boat was sold in January, 1986. It was not until some four months later that the Department of Revenue filed its notice of delinquent tax. An informal hearing was held as a result of the assessment and on October 2, 1986, the Department, in a letter to Petitioner's counsel, stated as a notice of reconsideration and the final position of the Department that it affirmed the assessment and expected it to be paid in full. In essence, the Department concluded that the vessel was imported into the State of Florida and stored here initially for a period in excess of five months. While here, it was modified and improved and was available for use by the owner even though it may not have been taken out and that all of this was done prior to its being used elsewhere, in another state, for more than six months. The Department considered this to be co-mingling with the mass of property in the State of Florida rendering the yacht subject to use tax, and its position appears to be legally correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Tireless, Inc., pay a use tax plus penalty and interest on the storage for use in Florida of the motor vessel, Tireless, and that such tax be based on a value assessment of $771,330.00. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of June, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. Arnold H. Pollock, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties hereto: By the Petitioner 1-8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to the fact that prior arrangements were made due to concern over availability of winter dockage space. There was no evidence regarding any representations made by the Bahia Mar Club. Accepted. 11-12. Rejected. There was no evidence of actual weather conditions. In fact, the decision was made to go south reportedly due to possible weather conditions but no effort was made to make the trip to the Great Lakes at that time. 13. See 11-12. Accepted. Rejected while the vessel was not used for sailing, Mr. Geiger did live aboard on several visits down from Ohio. 16-17. No evidence was introduced by either party on the issue of intent. Evidence as to actual use or non-use is controlling in any event. 18-21. Rejected as irrelevant. 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent 1-5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted. 14-16. Accepted. 17-18. Accepted. 19-20. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William D. Townsend, Esquire Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Debra A. Altizer, Esquire Post Office Box 14124 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302 Kevin J. O'Donnell, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Randy Miller, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
The Issue Whether Petitioner is liable for sales or use tax, plus interest and penalties, as asserted by the Respondent's Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida for-profit corporation whose sole stockholder is Corwin Zimmer. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner operated an air taxi charter service out of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, airport. Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Florida Revenue Act of 1949, as amended, including the provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner utilized three Learjets in its operations. At all times pertinent to this proceedings, each of these three jets was owned by a separate corporation and each corporation was owned by a single shareholder. Each jet was owned by a corporation to limit the liability of the individual shareholder. Each of the following owned one of these three jets: Alamo Jet, Inc., a Florida corporation wholly owned by Charles Schmidt; RLO, Inc., a Florida corporation wholly owned by Richard Owens; and Gulfstream Flight Services, Inc., a Florida corporation wholly owned by Dr. David Brown. These three corporations and their individual shareholders will be collectively referred to as the owners. These owners were unrelated to each other. Except for the agreements at issue in this proceeding, the owners were also unrelated to the Petitioner and Mr. Zimmer. None of the owners possessed the FAA licensure necessary to transport passengers for hire. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, each of the three owners had an agreement with Petitioner that was styled "Aircraft Management Agreement" (the agreement). Although written agreements could not be located for all three owners, Mr. Zimmer testified, credibly, that there existed a written agreement for each owner and that there was no material difference between the written agreement that was produced at the formal hearing and the other agreements. None of the owners fully utilized the jet it owned before entering into the agreement with Petitioner. As to each agreement, the owner was referred to as "owner" and his jet was described. Petitioner was referred to as "operator". The agreements do not contain the term "lease". The following are the responsibilities of the Petitioner as the operator pursuant to the agreement between Petitioner and Alamo Jet, Inc.: Place the Aircraft on its Air Carrier Certificate Number AT 705264 for the purpose of utilizing the aircraft in FAR 135 operations. Oversee all aircraft maintenance, aircraft records, aircraft time components, in accor- dance with the Learjet Model 55 maintenance program, Federal Aviation Regulations, and its operating certificate. Train flight crews, maintain crew records in accordance with Federal Aviation Regula- tions conduct initial, recurrent, six month proficiency flight checks. Provide the Owner with a flight crew at a rate of $450.00 per day, not to exceed $600.00 per month. Schedule all Aircraft, flight, crews and passenger activity through its dispatch department. Reimburse the Owner all moneys received from placing the Aircraft on the Garrett Engine Fleet Operations Program. Insure the Aircraft on its fleet operators policy and financially participate to recover the additional premium required for FAR 135 operations. Hanger the Aircraft at its Fort Lauder- dale facility at no charge to the owner. Provide fuel to the Owner at its Fort Lauderdale facility at $.25 above purchase cost. Insure that the aircraft [is] maintained in a like new condition with the exception of normal wear. Pay the Owner $800.00 per flight hour for the aircraft when it is utilized for FAR 135 operations. Provide the Owner with an aircraft state- ment and activity report by the 7th of the following month, and payment for the utiliza- tion of the aircraft by the 25th day of the month. Provide all charts, maps, and expendable storage at no charge to the Owner. Aggressively market the aircraft for maximum utilization. The Alamo Jet, Inc. agreement provided the following pertaining to aircraft flight utilization: Owner utilization: The Owner is responsible for all direct costs incurred from the flight. Maintenance Test Flights: The owner is responsible for all direct costs of operation. There will be no charge for the crew conducting the test flight. Flight Crew Training: The Operator shall be responsible for the direct cost of operation. This includes MSF payment, hourly maintenance cost, [and] fuel. FAR 135 Air Carrier Flights: The Operator is responsible for all cost incurred in addition to the payment of $800.00 per flight hour to the owner. The Alamo Jet, Inc. agreement provides that the Owner agrees to and is responsible for the following: Payment of the insurance premium less the additional amount required for commercial operations. Cost of maintaining the aircraft. To coordinate all flights with the Operators dispatch department. The Alamo Jet, Inc. agreement provides the following general conditions: Operator will aggressively market the charter utilization of the aircraft, and estimate its use at 600 hours the first year. No guarantee as to the amount of aircraft revenue hours are included in this agreement. Generally, Petitioner's flights are in the continental United States. During the audit period, each owner used its aircraft approximately ten days a month. Each owner could use its aircraft except when it was undergoing a major inspection or was down for maintenance. Other than those times, each owner had a key and unlimited access to its aircraft. Each owner had bumping privileges with respect to their aircraft. If an owner's aircraft was booked for a flight by Petitioner when the owner wanted to use it, the Petitioner would make the owner's aircraft available to the owner and re-book the passenger on another aircraft. Petitioner provided the pilot and crew when an owner wanted to use its aircraft at a per hour rate that was less than that charged for its taxi service. When an owner wanted to use his aircraft, he would contact one of Petitioner's employees to coordinate his use with the Petitioner. Mr. Zimmer testified that he did not intend the agreements with the owners to be leases. From the inception of the agreements, Mr. Zimmer viewed the arrangements as being contracts for the management of the aircraft so that his company and each owner could use its jet but also generate revenue when its jet was being used by Petitioner in its air taxi operations, referred to as FAR 135 operations. Mr. Zimmer testified that he intended that his relationship with the owners of the aircraft to be a marriage of operations and aircraft. Petitioner had the air carrier certificate, and the personnel and facilities to maintain the aircraft and provide air taxi service. 1/ During the audit, Mr. Dreker told Mr. Zimmer that the Respondent was treating the payments to the owners as lease payments. Before that time, no one had told Mr. Zimmer that the relationship constituted a lease. Each agreement required the owner to deliver its aircraft to Petitioner for use pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The owner gave up its exclusive possession, control, and dominion of its aircraft pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Petitioner controlled the use of the aircraft, subject to the terms of the agreement, which set forth the rights of the owner. Each agreement permitted the owner to fully utilize its jet. For the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Petitioner reported for federal income tax purposes in connection with its use of the three jets under the category "cost of goods sold - other costs - Jet Leases" the respective amounts of $650,531.00, $753,181.00, $923,374.00, $899,917.00, and $693,603.00. For the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Petitioner referred to the payments made to the owners as "Lease Payments". For the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Petitioner's books referred to the payments made to the owners as "Lease Payments". Mr. Zimmer was involved in the operation of the Petitioner from the time it was incorporated. He did not, however, become the sole stockholder until 1982. During 1982, Petitioner leased an airplane from American Jet in St. Louis, Missouri. The lease of that airplane is reflected on Petitioner's 1982 Federal income tax return, which was prepared by Rosen and Santini, P.A. Beginning in 1983, after Mr. Zimmer purchased the stock of the Petitioner, Robert J. Dreker, a CPA employed by Schmidt & Co., prepared all of Petitioner's federal tax returns. Petitioner's books were set up before Mr. Dreker became its CPA. Mr. Dreker did not believe that referring to the payments to owners as lease payments in Petitioner's Federal tax return or in its chart of accounts was significant because the payments were clearly deductible for tax purposes. Consequently, he retained the nomenclature reflected on the 1983 tax return and in the chart of accounts as he found them. Petitioner's chart of accounts was maintained on a daily basis by a bookkeeper. Three individuals filled the bookkeeper position at different times, none of whom had any special training or experience in tax matters. Mr. Dreker was of the opinion that referring to the payments to owners as lease payments did not conform to generally accepted accounting principles and mischaracterizes the relationship. Mr. Dreker was of the opinion that the payments to owners should be called management expenses or owner revenue payments. Mr. Dreker or his accounting firm had never been employed to prepare a certified financial statement for the Petitioner. Respondent audited Petitioner for the period May 1, 1987, through April 30, 1992. The auditor, Cynthia McHale, reviewed Petitioner's books and records, including the agreement with Alamo Jet, and interviewed Mr. Zimmer. Based on that audit the Respondent determined that the agreements between Petitioner and the owners constituted leases and that Petitioner was liable for sales or use taxes on those leases. Ms. McHale understood that Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Dreker did not intend the agreements to be leases. The amounts determined to be due were reflected by the Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995, which is the agency action challenged by Petitioner. Respondent asserts that Petitioner owes taxes in the amount of $238,454.24, penalty in the amount of $59,613.55, interest through August 12, 1993, in the amount of $102,633.11, for a total of $400,700.90, plus interest accruing from August 12, 1993, at the rate of $77.46 per day. Petitioner disputes that the agreements constitute leases and asserts that no tax is due. Petitioner does not challenge the underlying calculation that produced the figures contained in the Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995. Pursuant to its agreement with the owners, the Petitioner provided hangar storage space for the storage of the jets. Respondent has not assessed any tax for that storage. Petitioner did not assess taxes on the charges made by Petitioner to the passengers using its air taxi service since these charges are specifically exempt from taxation. In 1981, Petitioner corresponded with Respondent about its need to register with Respondent for sales tax purposes. The Respondent's reply, dated July 30, 1981, advised that Petitioner did not need to register for sales tax purposes because the Petitioner's business was a nontaxable service. At about the time the sales tax on services went into effect, Mr. Dreker talked with two employees of the Respondent in separate conversations and described the Petitioner's operations to them. Based on those conversations, Mr. Dreker formed the opinion that Petitioner was not subject to either sales tax or service tax. Petitioner did not pay to the Respondent or to the owners a service tax on the payments made to the owners between July 1, 1987, and December 31, 1987, the dates the service tax was in effect in Florida. The 1981 correspondence and Mr. Dreker's telephone conversations are the only evidence that supports Petitioner's estoppel argument. Mr. Dreker did not receive a written response to his telephone inquiry and he did not send a written inquiry to Respondent requesting a Letter of Technical Advice, a request for a Technical Assistance Advisement, or a Declaratory Statement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and sustains the assessments contained in the Notice of Decision dated March 16, 1995, that Petitioner owes taxes in the amount of $238,454.24, penalty in the amount of $59,613.55, interest through August 12, 1993, in the amount of $102,633.11, for a total of $400,700.90, plus interest accruing from August 12, 1993, at the rate of $77.46 per day. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May 1996.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Larry Webman was exclusively connected with International Land Brokers, Inc., as a real estate salesperson, from October 25, 1974, to November 24, 1974. During the period of respondent's employment, Jeffrey Kramer, a real estate broker, was president and active firm member of International Land Brokers, Inc. One of the corporation's offices consisted of two rooms. The front room contained Mr. Kramer's desk, a secretary's desk, file cabinets, a duplicating machine, and a reception area. The back room was divided into six cubicles, each with a telephone. The office complex had a regular telephone line and a WATS line. Attached to the walls of most of the cubicles most of the time were portions of a packet of papers that was mailed to certain prospects. Pages two through five of composite exhibit No. 1, together with the last page, were at one time posted on the walls of some of the cubicles. Between the hours of six and half past ten five nights a week and at various times on weekends, salespersons in the employ of International Land Brokers, Inc. manned the telephones in the cubicles. They called up property owners, introduced themselves as licensed real estate salespersons, and inquired whether the property owner was interested in selling his property. When a property owner indicated an interest in selling, the salesperson made a note of that fact. The following day, clerical employees mailed a packet of papers to the property owners whose interest in selling the salesperson had noted. Petitioner's composite exhibit No. 1 contains the papers mailed to one prospect. The contents of the materials which were mailed out changed three or four times over the year and a half that International Land Brokers, Inc., was in business. As a general rule, a week or so after the initial call to a property owner who proved interested in selling, a salesperson placed a second telephone call to answer any questions about the materials that had been mailed, and to encourage the property owner to list the property for sale with International Land Brokers, Inc. Property owners who listed their property paid International Land Brokers, Inc., a listing fee which was to be subtracted from the broker's commission, in the event of sale. When International Land Brokers, Inc., began operation, the listing fee was $200.00 or $250.00, but the listing fee was eventually raised to about $300.00. In the event the same salesperson both initially contacted the property owner and subsequently secured the listing, the salesperson was paid approximately 30 percent of the listing fee. If one salesperson initially contacted the property owner and another salesperson secured the listing, the one who made the initial telephone call was paid approximately $20.00 and the other salesperson was paid between $75.00 and $90.00 or thereabouts; when more than one salesperson was involved the sum of the amounts paid to the salespersons represented about 35 percent of the listing fee. In telephoning property owners, the salespersons worked from lists which International Land Brokers, Inc., had bought from unspecified individuals, or compiled from county tax records.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire and Mr. Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Larry N. Webman c/o K.K.W., Inc. 143 North East 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
